If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Colin Powell goes off on head-shaking staffer   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 450
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

41815 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Feb 2004 at 1:27 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



450 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-02-12 05:44:21 PM
Clumpy:
"He HAD WMD. He HAD WMD. I agree entirely with the facts, figures, all of it.

Did he EVER USE THEM ON AMERICANS? or PLAN TO? You seem to jump to the conclusion that he would, given the chance."


In a post-9/11 world, given at least some level of concern regarding Al Qaeda activity and cooperation in Iraq (which is quite blatant now), you are truly asserting that Bush's attitude should have been, "Well, they've never used them on us before; so they won't now. And they won't give them to anybody else to use on us, either?" Particularly given that everybody acknowledged Saddam wasn't fully cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors?

Feel free to think that way. I'm sure on Sept. 10, 2001, some people thought we'd never have our own commercial jets used as missiles against us, because if it could be done, it would have been done already.

Befuddled:
What exactly do you think your passage proves? That Blix had a French-leaning agenda and shouldn't have been in the job he had, due to his clear biases? I already knew that. See what Richard Butler has to say.

Blix has swallowed the Kool-Aid on the Liberal Lie I mentioned above. The one that makes no sense. The one where Saddam loses it all rather than admit he secretly disarmed his WMD himself. Asinine.
 
2004-02-12 05:46:53 PM
So I'm supposed to be sad for the rich because they pay 66% of the income tax while owning 80% of the wealth in our country?

Sounds like they're underpaying in my mind.

Have you ever taken a look at our Federal or your State's income tax code? Both are designed to thoroughly screw the middle class.

How about we tax people who are working for their money at a lower rate than money that is working for people?
 
2004-02-12 05:51:26 PM
Unfortunately, Colin Powell is just another "OIL STOOGE". Whatever he says has 0 credibility. If you listen to these losers bleat, you will just get mad. Tune them out. They are almost gone.
 
2004-02-12 05:53:24 PM
FishingWithFredo:

1) What did 9/11 actually change in regards to Iraq? I've heard other people on this, but I want to hear your opinion.

2) Do you have any documentation for your assertion that Iraqi cooperation with Al Queda is 'blatant'?

3) You're obviously convinced that Iraq still has (or is hiding) its WMDs. At what point, if ever, would you be convinced that the WMDs aren't there?
 
2004-02-12 05:54:49 PM
FishingWithFredo, I knew you would simply dismiss anything that didn't fit with your zealous support of all things Bush. How convenient.

I shouldn't respond to the threadjack, but I will start feeling sorry for the rich when they are taxed to the point of being as poor as I am. Until then, the rich can STFU about being taxed. The rich can pay their fair share to keep this country going since without the last 100 years of others paying their fare share they wouldn't have been able to become rich. If you think otherwise, then move to some place in the world where there is no taxes, may I suggest Somalia, and make your fortune.
 
2004-02-12 05:58:55 PM
FishingWithFredo
Liberals want you to believe that Saddam Hussein secretly destroyed the remaining WMD himself, destroyed all evidence that he destroyed them, then systematically thwarted pre-war weapons inspections

Hans Blix, to my recollection, never felt that the pre-war inspections were being thwarted. In fact I seem to remember him stating something about the inspections going well and needing more time to complete.
 
2004-02-12 06:09:39 PM
Too funny how the comments change after 5pm EST when the Conservatives get home from work.
 
2004-02-12 06:11:54 PM
I think is quite funny that conservatives (during the war) made all those derisive jokes about the French, Hans Blix, the U.N., etc.

And what do you know. THEY WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG.

Are they still called Freedom Fries?

I'm sure the French are laughing their asses off at my country because of you neo-con nitwits.
 
2004-02-12 06:16:07 PM
Man, I don't think Powell is going to be around much longer.

If he is allowing himself to get that upset over such a little thing as a junior staffer shaking his head, his skin has gotten a bit thin for this business. If you can't take the heat. . .

I have a feeling he is going to retire after this coming election, write a book, do a lecture circuit, make some big bucks, and live out the rest of his life as far away from politics as possible. That's just my prediction though.

Too bad, I really like the guy. He's alwasy seemed like he wanted to be honest about the whole Iraq thing, but was overruled at every turn. His sense of loyalty to this administration seems pretty strong, if it wasn't, I think he would have cracked by now. I don't know, maybe I'm just projecting, but that's the impression I get when I read his expressions when he speaks publicly (and privately) on the subject.

As for the guy bringing up the Bush AWOL thing during proceedings that had nothing to do with the subject; he deserved what he got, he was being a complete asshat.
 
2004-02-12 06:17:01 PM
In a post-9/11 world........

Is anyone else sick of sentences that start like this? It's an attempt to evoke an extreme emotion and remind everyone terrorists are out there trying to kill us. Well guess what? Terrorists have been killing long before 9/11.
 
2004-02-12 06:18:53 PM
Interesting that both members of Bush's administration who are going to take the fall for this phony baloney war are black(Condi and Powell). Clever appointments on the part of the GOP. Granted Cheny/Bush/Rumsfeld etc. are gonna feel the heat too. It's the two black parrots who are in that nice buffer zone that are going to be cooked!
 
2004-02-12 06:20:17 PM
re: THEY WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG (the French)

Yes well, it was no big mystery. Everybody knew. The only ones who didn't seem to know were U.S. citizens.

I never believed those liars in your admin for a second.
 
2004-02-12 06:27:42 PM
I don't get why people are always surprised when they finally realize that Colin Powell is an asshat.
 
2004-02-12 06:30:21 PM
I don't think he's an asshat, he's just become a tool. He should'a seen it coming tho.

Maybe that does make him an asshat. I dunno
 
2004-02-12 06:45:33 PM
i think its time to start knocking the farkers out.
 
2004-02-12 06:59:23 PM
FishingWithFredo
In a post-9/11 world, given at least some level of concern regarding Al Qaeda activity

Fredo, I'm more concerned that the level of concern regarding Al Quaeda activity in the PRE-9/11 world was far less than it should have been.

But to reiterate: Iraq was never a threat to Americans, even WHEN THEY ACTUALLY HAD WMD. All your stories about "they could have given weapons to any terrorist" are just that, stories.

To answer a prior question someone brought up about "if they knew there were no WMD, why'd they go and lie when we'd find out about it?"

I have an easy answer to that, which also ties together why this little spectre of Iraq-Al Qaeda keeps popping up:

They hoped they could ride the tide of American sentiment about 9/11 right over into Iraq. That the American people would be so ready to kick any and all brown-skinned asses, that they'd never really get called on the carpet. They hoped everyone would just kind ignore the reality, because they were so angry about what happened, and be willing to look the other way just a bit.

It didn't work. 'Cept maybe for you.
 
2004-02-12 07:00:14 PM
Why do the head shakers hate America so much?
 
2004-02-12 07:07:34 PM
fark all those litle asnine suit wearing but farks.
yeah i mean ALL of em'
 
2004-02-12 07:13:51 PM
WMD or no WMD, the fact remains that Saddam did not FULLY and IMMEDIATELY comply with the resolution that promised his doom if he didn't.

Saddam's unauthorized missile program (a direct violation of his peace treaty) was farther along than we thought and the infrastructure and telent for a WMD program was there ready to be assembled as soon as the inspectors left (which they were preparing to do).

So regardless of whether stockpiles are found there is PLENTY of justification for the war all over. Just look around.

The weapons programs that were found were a violation of a peace treaty signed in a war against the United States. That's plenty of justification right there. And since he didn't have the means to deliver them to us, all he had to do was hand them under the table to some random terrorist and suddenly we have millions of dead Americans rotting in the street.

Bush made the right decision based on the CHANCE that this might happen. Eliminate the threat before it is imminent. With this much at stake, he erred on the side of caution, like a responsible leader SHOULD do.
 
2004-02-12 07:46:27 PM
FishingWithFredo, how do you like your crow prepared?
Wrapped in tinfoil.
 
2004-02-12 07:58:55 PM
Pre-Traumatic-Stress,
I'm shaking in my boots. I bet you play Grand Theft Auto all the time you hardend gangsta. LOLOL
BTW, if ya pull a gun on someone, since you so proudly proclaim you pack. You better 1) be prepaired to pull the trigger, and 2) better hope that when you flash your piece at someone they don't unload an H&K 45 into your sorry ass.
 
2004-02-12 08:05:30 PM
After the show he put on at the UN I can't believe Powell is still relevant. I know that for me, nothing the man says can carry weight anymore. How anyone could lie like that and still show his face in public just screams "No character, morals, or conscience". Powell should just retire.
 
2004-02-12 08:16:51 PM
I feel bad for Powell. I think he's been angry since he was forced to lie to the UN.

STRYPERSWINE - you are a dingbat. If Saddam had no weapons, which it appears he didn't, he not only provided full compliance but also went way beyond the call of 1441, which you clearly have not read, as you have also clearly not Iraq's submission, or the comments of the French, German or Russian UN security council reps. Or even those of Jack Straw. He did acknowledge accounting errors, which Hans Blix is on record as saying he could verify or deny within three months. The Bushies did not want him to verify this, because they knew what they wanted to do before they hit office, and had said so publicly at the PNAC website. This is unconservative behaviour, and a betrayal of first principles, not a responsible pre-emption.

Worried about someone giving nukes to terrorists? Pakistan, Tajikistan, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Germany, France and China would be much more sensible targets.
 
2004-02-12 08:16:52 PM
STRYPERSWINE

You know what? I've got a hunch you're dangerous.

You will be annihilated now.

Now that you are out of the way, I think I'll help myself to your property. (I've got to admit, I have kind of had my eye on it for a while, but I swear it didn't influency my judgement in any way. ... No really!)

When it's convenient, we will decide whether there was anything to worry about.

Oops! My bad.
 
2004-02-12 09:32:43 PM
So was the staffer shaking it like a polaroid picture?
 
2004-02-12 09:40:54 PM
STYPERSWINE, a missile program???

Why are bringing up that old crap again? Did you think people weren't paying attention the first time that crap was brought up?
 
2004-02-12 09:42:01 PM
gomachan - have we actually shut the bastards up?
 
2004-02-12 09:56:19 PM
Just because one works for the government doesn't mean he or she loses his or her freedom of speech. The staffer had the right to *shake his head* because he has the right to his opinion, as outlined by the US Constitution. Remember, that is supposed to protect the people from having their opinions trampled by the government, and just because you work for them doesn't mean you have to give up your rights.

To all those people who said, "He's there to do his job, not pass judgement," you're sadly mistaken. He can pass judgement whenever he wants, ESPECIALLY if he's working for a politician/the government. Maybe you can baa at the supposed "rules" a little more, and paralyze the staffer's body so he never makes such a horrible mistake as subtly showing his disgust again, in whatever setting you deem inappropriate.

If Powell can't handle a little dissent, maybe he should step down from his position and go to work for a *private* company.
 
2004-02-12 10:12:34 PM
These farking dems are such scumbags. Really. Dragging this made up crap into the proceedings with powell is a new farking low, even for these turds.
 
2004-02-12 10:47:11 PM
crawlspace - Good, but a little desperate on the dismount. 4.2.
 
2004-02-12 10:55:41 PM
What about Halliburton? and the backroom oil deals? and the Skull and Bones/Illuminati connection?

Bush Lied
I Believe It*
And That Settles It.


*Belief may, at the discretion of the individual, be plainly stated or justified by various independent weekly newspapers or postmodern philosophy.
 
2004-02-13 12:00:34 AM
On Mr. Bush's AWOL Records Mr. Powell, Let's Definitly Go There, the American People Are Definitly Owed a Real and True Inquiry, not som Me-Lai Coverup. Is Your Attention Raised Mr. Powell? It Should Be. You Are A Servant Of The American People. Get That? Servant ! ! ! You and Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and everyone else on the White House staff, Senate and Congress. Start Acting Like it.
 
2004-02-13 12:21:20 AM
I'm sure if I shake my head in disgust with the "everybody's a liar" democrats that I'll get a liberal ass chewing. Double standards as usual.

I'm not very political, but you people are rabid. Just an observation from the middle. Get a grip.
 
2004-02-13 01:23:33 AM
Very glad he chewed the kid out.

/sick of disrespect and also of all the idiots who *still* don't understand the war in Iraq
 
2004-02-13 01:43:25 AM
I wonder why you Americans failed to see what we - the rest of the world were well aware of....The war in Iraq was just not worth it in the first place. Why do you believe without question what your leaders say???
 
2004-02-13 01:49:04 AM
CRAP! i got here too late

/grabs keys and leaves
 
2004-02-13 02:18:38 AM
Hahahah.

Damnit.

I had a perfect Parksinson's disease joke. Then I see the very, very first thing posted here... was exactly what I was going to say.

Nice work, drsoran. We geniuses think alike!
 
2004-02-13 03:26:16 AM
Step one: Tone down the rhetoric

Step two: Listen once in a while

Step three: expand your understanding of politics beyond 10 second sound bites and bold print newspaper headlines

Step four: If, upon completion of steps one through three, you still feel a need to use words containing "IST" or "ISM", this shows you have no capacity for original thoguht. You have nothing new to say. Please shut up.
 
2004-02-13 04:00:49 AM

Powell must have forgotten this quote from his autobiography:

"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units. Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."

from My American Journey, by Colin Powell
 
2004-02-13 04:05:43 AM
Garanimal
Yessa, Massa, That Colin Poweel sho' do a good Uncle Tom!!!...Yessa!!!

Hey, I didn't know Harry Belafonte was a farker!


Rayonic
If you really believe that this violates that little prick's "Freedom of Expression", then I invite you to attend a public trial, sit in the back, and continually flip off the judge. You'll very quickly learn that there are standards of behavior in certain formal and professional settings, and they can be enforced.

Well said, though now I'm imagining Mills Lane beating up an un unruly courtroom reporter with his gavel. Regarding the story, the staffer has freedom of expression, but so does Powell.


Henchman

That's Colin Powell? Looks more like Hank Hill!

 
2004-02-13 10:15:10 AM
Props to Colin, he has one of the most difficult jobs in the world, and does it well. He has to take shots for the president and defend policies that he himself raised questions about. He voiced opposition to some of Bush's plans and tactics, but once the poopoo hit the fan, he stepped up and did his duty... which is to serve the president.
 
2004-02-13 11:58:48 AM
Too bad there are no Toni Russo's this time around.
 
2004-02-13 12:32:22 PM
I know I will probably be flamed for this but...


I do not understand the hatred being thrown around here. Both sides are to blame. BOTH SIDES.

In the years before 9/11 the dems did NOTHING to take care of the growing OBL problem and other terrorists. Thousands have paid with their lives for this mistake. I know you dems will try to blame it on someone else, but the bottom line is this...YOUR MAN AT THE HELM, HIS RESPONSIBILITY. JUST AS YOU HOLD BUSH ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE MISSING WMD'S, SO SHOULD BILLY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR NOT DOING ANYTHING TO PREVENT 9/11. Do not give me "we could not have known it would happen" ..that is crap. As someone said before about Bush "He was either ignorant or incompetent" ...So was your guy..

As far as Iraq goes, Bush, I believe did the correct thing (I will explain in a minute so hold your flamethrower for a moment) BUT he did it in the most farked up way possible. The run up to this invasion will probably be remembered in histroy as one of the most clumsiest displays of foreign policy EVER. I can not for the life of me imagine a time in modern history...or hell all of histroy when the USA has looked so stupid in the eyes of the rest of the world. WE LOOK LIKE TOTAL ASSHATS thanks to Mr. Bush and his "bad intelligence". He must be held accountable for this. Whether the intent to decieve was malicious or not makes no difference. He is at the helm, own the fark up! THOUSANDS HAVE ALSO DIED FOR THIS MISTAKE TOO.

Now for what is important, at least to me:

I personally care not if Iraq had any WMD's. I was not willing to take the chance that one could end up in the hands of a terrorist. Was there PROOF this could happen? ...not solid proof, certainly no. Only speculation.

For me, my analysis goes like this:

1. Saddam is a proven bad man. The cold blooded murder of CHILDREN is enough for me to realize he is bad. Perhaps some of you are ok with killing kids, but I am not.

2. He did have WMD and used them at one point, albeit a long time ago. I have learned in my own experiences being alive that past behavior is the best indication of future behavior. This is my opinion, and mine only. It is what I know.

3. What can a chemical weapon or worse, a nuclear weapon do to an American city? Destruction and death on a scale never before seen in America. Unfortunetly, I believe that if this IS going to happen somewhere in the world, it will be an American city.

I added these things up in my head and it brought me to the conclusion that the risk of pre-emptive war and the precedent it may set is NOT ENOUGH to outweigh the risk of a WMD being used against Americans. THIS IS MY OPINION. YOU CAN NOT nor WILL NOT sway it. I feel terribly bad for innocent people in other countries that die at the hands of the American war machine, but I am an American, and must support my country. Not because I am afraid to be considered "unpatriotic" but because I am smart enough to realize that YOU CAN NOT negotiate with people willing to blow themselves up to kill you, and I believe the only way to stop someone who is DEDICATED to killing you is to kill them first. Our enemies are dedicated to killing us. Not because of Bush, but because of US, the American people, our way of life. Wake up and realize that. My time on this planet has shown me that this is the way of the world. This is life. This is nature. If you believe otherwise, I am happy for you. I wish I could convince myself that we can all be happy and live together. I just don't see it. Earth would be a perfectly could place if was not for people. While most of us would love nothing more then world peace, it is the few dedicated to preventing it that seem to come to power (that is a whole other discussion).

One last thing: If you wonder how I can say that the precendent of pre-emptive war was justified simply to prevent an attack that may or may not have been possible, I submit this:

Take the time to do some research on WMD's and what they are capable of. Read "The Making of the atomic bomb" by Richard Rhodes, specifically the chapter on what exactly happened in Hirsohima when it was bombed. You may be surprized at what you find there. Once you have all the facts about what these weapons do, then ask yourself one question.."Is it worth the risk?" Think not in terms of politics, but in terms of people. Are you willing to chance a 15 kiloton explosion in Los Angeles? New York? Las Vegas? Are you capable of deciding which city might be vaporized because a man like Saddam deserves a second chance?

My opinion is no, but that is my opinion. I do not hate any of you or blame any of you for your political views and party affiliations, and I ask that you return the favor. So please do not flame me to prove your side is right and the other wrong. I do not care about that. Do not flame my spelling or grammer, I know it is awful, but again I do not care. I do not care about National Guard dental records or who is farking their intern.

I care about the fusing or splitting of atmoic nuclei on or around my farking house. And I believe that no price is too high to prevent it...

..fire at will
 
2004-02-13 12:56:59 PM
...Or maybe, since the left positions any rival to their position as the target of a witch hunt -- disagree with me, you're a racist/sexist/warmonger/fascist/corporate lackey/moron/religious nut/Nazi/need I go on? -- maybe, just maybe, Colin decided that just once some jerk oughta be called to account for his inability to friggin SIT STILL and wait his turn.

Remember, "You must be this further left (GIS for a carnival ride measuring clown, anyone?) of the speaker in question to heckle." Remember when Clinton opened that (Town Hall) meeting to discuss Iraq? "One, two, three, four, we don't want your racist war?"
 
2004-02-13 01:25:44 PM
DeepShiznit, you seem like you have your heart in the right place, but your ideas on foreign policy are poorly thought-out at best, and suicidal at worst.

If every nation followed the 'pre-emptive strike' policy, we never would have made it to the 21st century. Even if the US is the only country to follow this policy, it would require the immediate invasions of North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and possibly China. These countries are at least as much of a threat to the US as Iraq, which, according to your argument, not only justifies but demands an invasion.

We live in a world community. There are laws of humanity that need to be respected. Invading and destroying any nation that you believe may become a threat to you in the future is not only dangerous and criminal, it's downright evil. America should be a beacon for peace, not a murderous bully.
 
2004-02-13 02:48:52 PM
Papal so right you are...

I whole heartedly agree. That is why I would not want George Bush's job. But...

This argument can easily go both ways and to some point you re-enforce mine.

If every nation followed the 'pre-emptive strike' policy, we never would have made it to the 21st century. Even if the US is the only country to follow this policy, it would require the immediate invasions of North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and possibly China.

If pre-emption would have been used on Germany in 1938 it is not inconcievable to think that the 50,000,000 dead of WWII could have been MUCH lower. Then again maybe not...after all hind site is 20/20

North Korea and China in my eyes are THE biggest threat to the US. But there is one more important point about Iraq:

The USA is being attacked by Middle Eastern Islamic Fundementalist terrorists. I think the Bush administration decided that the only way to "defeat" the terrorists is to change the way they think about western culture. This must be done by exposing them to it. What better way then to install a western democracy in the Middle East. Iraq was simply conviently located in the right region and just so happened to have a government with a really bad track record that provided SOME justification for invasion.

I think if it had been North Korean Terrorists flying those planes into the towers we would now have tanks and soldiers crawling all over North Korea instead of Iraq.

I certainly don't pretend to suggest the problems in our world our easy ones to solve. The fact remains though, the problems must be solved, not ignored...not sanctioned forever either.

We live in a world community. There are laws of humanity that need to be respected. Invading and destroying any nation that you believe may become a threat to you in the future is not only dangerous and criminal, it's downright evil

Doesn't this apply to the terrorists as well? Unfortunetly they do not play by these rules and seems that if we try to we will always be on the losing end...

What would you suggest we do to convince the people in our world who don't share your view of a "World Community" that would keep them from vaporinzing hundreds of thousands of my country men if they had the chance, other then keeping and preventing them from using them?

Do you think the other countries in the world who hate us (Norht Korea, China who already possesses WMD, Iran) if or when they gain nuclear weapons will immedietly attack us with them? Of course not. They know they would have their own mushroom cloud party to attened if they did...but with terrorists it is different. There is no single country, no specific government to direct our missles at. The terrorists know our deterrent does not work on them...so what is to stop them from using any WMD they might acquire? ...good Karma?
 
2004-02-13 03:11:16 PM
"2004-02-13 03:26:16 AM scumbucket
Step one: Tone down the rhetoric

Step two: Listen once in a while

Step three: expand your understanding of politics beyond 10 second sound bites and bold print newspaper headlines

Step four: If, upon completion of steps one through three, you still feel a need to use words containing "IST" or "ISM", this shows you have no capacity for original thoguht. You have nothing new to say. Please shut up."


Could not have said this better myself. I would say 70% of the people who come to fark (and about 95% of those who post regularly) have a dilettantish at best understanding of any real issues.

It is much easier to blindly hate than to actually think. Most people would rather put more energy into waxing their SUVs than to actually read a book on whatever pet issue they claim to know all about.

What people need to realize is there are very very few cases where one side of the argument is the only "correct" side.

People who have never been poor dont know how different life is without money. People who have never owned a small business dont know how hard it is to build up a struggling business. Religious people dont understand that not everyone believes in a "God". Atheists dont understand that religious folks are (usually) only doing what they consider to be the "rgight" thing.

EXTREMISM is EXTREMISM. Those talking heads on the TV and the radio dont give a rat's ass about the truth. They are entertainers just like Oprah and Jim Jim the Dancing Monkey.

It takes actual work on your part to really know whats going on in this world. Some of you should try it some time.
 
2004-02-13 03:29:54 PM
"If pre-emption would have been used on Germany in 1938 it is not inconcievable to think that the 50,000,000 dead of WWII could have been MUCH lower."

You can draw this argument back to the stone age, if you want. In your example, Germany would have invaded its neighbiors years earlier, as they were a potential threat. Any way you slice it, foreign policy based on paranoia is simply wrong.

"I think the Bush administration decided that the only way to "defeat" the terrorists is to change the way they think about western culture. This must be done by exposing them to it."

Agreed. But why is a full-scale invasion the only means to acheive this? We both know that this administration threw diplomacy out the window long before the actual start of the invasion. Why? War is a last resort, not a quick resolution.

"What would you suggest we do to convince the people in our world who don't share your view of a "World Community" that would keep them from vaporinzing hundreds of thousands of my country men if they had the chance, other then keeping and preventing them from using them?"

If the goal is to stop people from commiting terrorist acts, having a foreign occupying power in the region is the last thing you want to do. Take a look at the American revolution, the Irish "Troubles" circa 1918, and he current situation in Chechnya. In all of these situations, the insertion/invasion of foreign troops only served to fan the flames, and all led to the defeat of the occupying power.

"The terrorists know our deterrent does not work on them...so what is to stop them from using any WMD they might acquire?"

Without sounding too touchy feely, ask yourself the question: "Why are these people doing this?" What is the causation? Are they waking up and saying "I want to blow myself into 1,000 pieces, and kill innocent people?" For the most part, terrorists feel that they have no other choice. They feel that they have either been oppressed, discriminated against, or harmed, and that they have no other choice but violence. Why not try to give them a choice? In the middle east, this would mean working to restore our credibility in the region in order to help the peace process. The primary reason we were attacked is our support of Israel. Perhaps we should take a look at our reasons for the support of Israel, and our actions in doing so.
 
2004-02-13 04:41:02 PM
Papal, I am amazed to find we can actually discuss this without resorting to flamning..it is a nice change and a fun debate :)

Agreed. But why is a full-scale invasion the only means to acheive this? We both know that this administration threw diplomacy out the window long before the actual start of the invasion. Why? War is a last resort, not a quick resolution.

How can you expose people who are in a "controlled" enviroment to western culture. If you are dealing with state run media, Al-Jazeera types, etc, how will you ever expose Middle Eastern culture to western culture, especially if the leaders of these countries will not allow it. Why would they not allow it? ...because western culture = freedom and freedom = no more dictator. So guys like Saddam limit the exposure of the populace to our way of life. I think a lot of people in the middle east hate America because they have been told and taught too, not because they have experienced our "colonialism" first hand. I'm sure many have been direct "victims" of our foreign policy, but I think it is the minority.

If the goal is to stop people from commiting terrorist acts, having a foreign occupying power in the region is the last thing you want to do

Completely agree. I think the bush administration thought there were no other choices, given the severity of 9/11. You can argue whether or not it was, but at the end of the day we will all be left with our own opinions about whether or not it truly was the last resort.

Without sounding too touchy feely, ask yourself the question: "Why are these people doing this?" What is the causation? Are they waking up and saying "I want to blow myself into 1,000 pieces, and kill innocent people?" For the most part, terrorists feel that they have no other choice.

Again, we find ourselves at a paradox. To accuse GWB of claiming "we have no other choice but to invade" and saying he was lying, also implies that you MUST condenm the terrorists for reaching the same conclusion. The same thought process that should have halted the march to invasion, should also halt the march to terrorism. Unfortunetly it did not in either case. Why? ...I wish I knew. It is, in final analysis, the same story we have seen over and over again throught out history. Fear corrupts reason.

As far as Israel goes... *pulls back from keyboard* ...that could be a whole new thread. My personal belief is that both parties in that "conflict" need a very serious "talking too"
 
2004-02-13 04:55:03 PM
"How can you expose people who are in a "controlled" enviroment to western culture?"

Money. This invasion is costing us $87 billion dollars? Take half of that, and use it to ply the pockets of countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Get them to open up their countries to American commercial interests... It's already happening, just not fast enough. Give some influential Saudis a financial interest in 'Western Culture', and it'll happen. Spend $5 billion supporting very public relief efforts for the Palestinians and Iraqis. Be the good guy. It won't happen as fast as an invasion, but it would cost less, and leave a lot fewer grieving families.

"I think the bush administration thought there were no other choices, given the severity of 9/11."

From what I've seen and read about this administration, I believe that an invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion from the day that Bush took office. September 11th just made it that much easier for them to sell the war.

"To accuse GWB of claiming "we have no other choice but to invade" and saying he was lying, also implies that you MUST condenm the terrorists for reaching the same conclusion."

Absolutely. I abhor terrorists, and I don't want my statements misinterpreted as defending them. However, are you willing to say that Bush's thought process in this case was similar to that of a terrorist? "I am threatened, and I have no choice but violence." I'd like to think that the American government would be above that level, myself.
 
Displayed 50 of 450 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report